1. Title, director, and release year? Coal Country, Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller (2009)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film focuses on coal mining and dances between those for it and those opposed to it. It is basically about the fight between activists and communities affected by the mining and the actual miners who like what they are doing. Mining is a very profitable practice, one that as technologies advance, is doing ever-greater damage to the environment and the people in the surrounding communities it is poisoning by blasting, digging, and cutting off the tops of mountains for its coal.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from an organizational standpoint as much as an ecological one. These companies, which reside mainly in the West Virginia, Ohio Valley region, are growing both in size and in power. It is getting to the point that they are more powerful than the government. They pay off regulators so they can continue going about their business regardless of who suffers. People around these mining sites live in terrible conditions. There water is rendered completely undrinkable because of the runoff that gets into their streams and lakes, which is where their tap water comes from. People and animals alike are getting sick because of what is happening as a result of the coal company’s power.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that it was a great idea to not just talk about one side of the story or the other. The film talked about both parties and their reasons for feeling the way they did. The reasons for the activists and people inhabiting these reasons is obvious, but these miners really are proud of what they do, which is a large contributor of why this practice has become so successful. It is integrated into everything those regions do.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I feel that with a film like this that was so special about how it really told both stories, it really didn’t need to get into the boring information about processing and burning. The whole rest of the film was great with the stories it told that it didn’t need the extra bland information.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Since these coal companies dominate these regions so heavily, it would be interesting to see what other types of resources they have and what other ways these people could contribute so that maybe each side could win. The workers could maintain their sense of pride while citizens wouldn’t be poisoned.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Since the film integrated both sides of the fence it was really about reaching out to the masses and giving new perspective to people would maybe be very opinionated and stuck in their ways. It tricks you into listening to both sides and confuses you until you don’t know what to think anymore because both sides have valid arguments.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This was an interesting film in that there is no clear bad guy. If there is no bad guy there is no real intervention possible. I would have to say what this film really teaches us is no matter what the issue there is always at least two sides to the story. Even something that seems so obvious as mountaintop removal can be argued for its better points. If you feel strongly about something you should fight for it. You will be surprised what you can accomplish.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
As far as the types of sustainable films that I have seen go, this film was a pioneer in the way they went about portraying their information. It bounced back and forth between the activist, citizen side and the miner side so that the viewer could never get comfortable with one side or the other. I guess if I had to choose I would say that the film could have suggested ways that both sides could win by proposing alternative energy sources as well as other local resources that the region could export.
1. Title, director, and release year?
Coal Country, Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller (2009)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on coal mining and dances between those for it and those opposed to it. It is basically about the fight between activists and communities affected by the mining and the actual miners who like what they are doing. Mining is a very profitable practice, one that as technologies advance, is doing ever-greater damage to the environment and the people in the surrounding communities it is poisoning by blasting, digging, and cutting off the tops of mountains for its coal.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from an organizational standpoint as much as an ecological one. These companies, which reside mainly in the West Virginia, Ohio Valley region, are growing both in size and in power. It is getting to the point that they are more powerful than the government. They pay off regulators so they can continue going about their business regardless of who suffers. People around these mining sites live in terrible conditions. There water is rendered completely undrinkable because of the runoff that gets into their streams and lakes, which is where their tap water comes from. People and animals alike are getting sick because of what is happening as a result of the coal company’s power.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that it was a great idea to not just talk about one side of the story or the other. The film talked about both parties and their reasons for feeling the way they did. The reasons for the activists and people inhabiting these reasons is obvious, but these miners really are proud of what they do, which is a large contributor of why this practice has become so successful. It is integrated into everything those regions do.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I feel that with a film like this that was so special about how it really told both stories, it really didn’t need to get into the boring information about processing and burning. The whole rest of the film was great with the stories it told that it didn’t need the extra bland information.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Since these coal companies dominate these regions so heavily, it would be interesting to see what other types of resources they have and what other ways these people could contribute so that maybe each side could win. The workers could maintain their sense of pride while citizens wouldn’t be poisoned.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Since the film integrated both sides of the fence it was really about reaching out to the masses and giving new perspective to people would maybe be very opinionated and stuck in their ways. It tricks you into listening to both sides and confuses you until you don’t know what to think anymore because both sides have valid arguments.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This was an interesting film in that there is no clear bad guy. If there is no bad guy there is no real intervention possible. I would have to say what this film really teaches us is no matter what the issue there is always at least two sides to the story. Even something that seems so obvious as mountaintop removal can be argued for its better points. If you feel strongly about something you should fight for it. You will be surprised what you can accomplish.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
As far as the types of sustainable films that I have seen go, this film was a pioneer in the way they went about portraying their information. It bounced back and forth between the activist, citizen side and the miner side so that the viewer could never get comfortable with one side or the other. I guess if I had to choose I would say that the film could have suggested ways that both sides could win by proposing alternative energy sources as well as other local resources that the region could export.